More Liberal Bigotry

Liberals are bigots. It's a symptom of their ideology - an inevitable consequence of their political agenda. Bigotry is as fundamental to liberalism as swimming is to fish. You cannot be a liberal without being a bigot. Liberals, for example, see every black face as a victim. They don't believe blacks are able to take care of themselves so they must be subsidized with tax payer dollars. Liberals stereotypically believe every black person is the same – they think the same, they struggle the same, and they are all equally victims of whites. Never mind Dr. King's dream that men should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, if a black man wants a job, or to go to college, or to start a business, liberals automatically think he needs special consideration because he's black. The color of his skin is the first criterion liberals consider. It's called, “affirmative action.” To liberals, blacks are “disadvantaged” as though being black is like being handicapped.

Because they are bigots in their very core, liberals are blind to they own bigotry. It's kind of like that stinky person who can't smell his own body odor. If a conservative should disagree with a black person about anything, then liberals assume the conservative is only disagreeing with the person because he's black. They just can't understand the concept of judging a person (even a black person) by his actions or words. Likewise, if conservatives talk about “welfare reform,” liberals accuse them of racism because the liberals think most people on welfare are black. And heaven forbid if a black person dares to believe he's not a victim and works hard to improve himself because then that person is accused of trying to “act white” and labeled an “Uncle Tom.”

I moved to Kentucky in the summer of 1970, when I was only 4 years old. Even though I was a more than a decade removed from Segregation, I remember some of the racial tensions that still lingered in the South. Being white myself, I can't say I can entirely empathize with the struggles blacks faced in the 50's but I can at least say I'm sympathetic to it. I can imagine, at least a little, the smoldering defiance Rosa Parks must have felt when she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus.

Certainly there was racism then. For the record, I'm against racism but I'm still for liberty. If a person wants to be racist, I think it's his right to be a racist. However, the real problem wasn't necessarily the racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time but rather it was the segregation laws that put teeth in racism. For example, it would be sad if a black man wouldn't marry a white woman for fear they might be shunned by a racist society. It's a far worse thing, though, to make laws against interracial marriage. It was the laws allowing segregation that truly made blacks the victims of racists.

Democrats back then were all for institutional racism. For example, it was Democrat governor, George Wallace, who stood blocking the steps to a segregated school in Alabama and said, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Since then, Democrats may have officially denounced segregation, but they are still not able to divorce themselves from the racism inherent in the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

So where am I going with all this? I mention this now because here in my own beloved state of Kentucky, liberal Democrats have abused the power of their office to impose their racism on another class of people – Bible believing Christians. Just recently, our Democrat Secretary of State, Bob Stewart, advised Ark Encounter, LLC, the group building the Noah's ark themed attraction in KY, that the state has changed its mind on the group's application for a tax incentive KY makes available to tourist attractions. The Ark Encounter will not be receiving the incentive after all.

When I first wrote about the Ark Encounter project 4 years ago, it had already been approved to receive a special tax incentive the state of KY makes available to lure tourist attractions here. It's not really a subsidy, per se. Instead, new tourist attractions can receive a partial rebate of the amount of sales tax they generate for the state. In other words, for every sales tax dollar the state receives from Ark Encounter visitors, they would give a few cents back to the park. So it doesn't cost the state any money – the state is making money from the park. What's more, it's only paying the incentive out of funds received by people visiting the park! No money is being taken from property taxes, income taxes, etc.

Some other attractions in KY that have received this same incentive are the Newport Aquarium and the Kentucky Speedway.

When the park originally applied for the incentive, it was clear this was a for-profit endeavor but was still overtly religious in nature. From the get go, folks like Barry Lynn objected to a religious organization receiving “tax payer funding” but the incentives were approved notwithstanding. With that approval in hand, the group raised the necessary funds, purchased the land, got the permits, and began building. Now, the state has changed its mind and told the group they will not receive the incentive after all. They claim to object on the grounds that AiG intends to use the park to proselytize (AiG has always been very clear about this) and that workers are required to sign a faith statement – which is a federal right for religious organizations. So the objections sound rather shallow since very little has changed about the park's stated goals since the state approved the original application.

I'm not sure how much the group relied on this incentive to make its decision on where to build but I know it was at least a factor. Its location is only a few miles away from OH and IN so the group had other options on where it could build and still be reasonably close to the Creation Museum. It's a rather dirty trick to lure the business in with the incentive and then take it away after it's too late to change its mind.

But besides that, what annoys me the most about all this is how the state is hurting Christians with its racist policies. We saw the same thing when the Boston Mayor wanted to ban Chick-fil-A because its president supported traditional marriage or the confiscatory fines levied against Hobby Lobby because they did not want to pay for employees' abortion inducing drug prescriptions. Time after time, the government treats religious people and businesses as second class citizens. Sec. Stewart said in his letter that the Ark Encounter, “will generate jobs and visitor spending that will be welcomed in the local economy.” I'm sure it will and he is happy to accept it; he just won't offer the same incentive KY has given to non-religious attractions. It's sort of like the bus driver who didn't mind receiving a fare from Rosa Parks but still didn't want her to sit in the white people's section.

If this were a black owned business, Democrats would be falling all over themselves to give away subsidies because they believe blacks can't run a business without help from white liberals. But this is a Christian owned business and they treat Christians differently. They can't see how refusing to give a religious business the same incentive available to anyone else is discrimination.

I'll say it again. Liberals are bigots.

Looking Back on 2012

Many news sources at this time of year publish “Top 10” lists looking back on notable events of the past year. Many of these lists are lighthearted or, at the very least, try to reflect on some of the more positive events of the expiring year. I'm not saying that nothing good has happened in 2012 but as I look back, this year seems to have brought many challenges to the Church. I hate to throw a wet blanket on everyone's New Year celebrations, but here are a few things Christians need to think about and pray for in 2013.

Gay Marriage

Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, suffered much political persecution after his personal endorsement of traditional marriages. In a less publicized story, Matt Grubbs, owner of Maryland based, Discover Annapolis Tours, has decided to close shop rather than facing a pointless legal battle with Maryland's Commission on Civil Rights because Discover Annapolis Tours does not offer its services to same sex couples. These are not isolated cases. More and more Christian business owners are discovering that their right to exercise their faith is subservient to an unenumerated right to be gay.

The tide is turning in America concerning gay marriage. In November, Maine and Maryland became the first states to approve gay marriage by popular vote, breaking a 32-state streak where gay marriage has already been defeated at the ballot box. In some states where gay marriage was defeated in referendum, it has still been foisted upon the people by activist courts or liberal legislatures. Nine states now allow same sex marriage.

Obamacare

Christian owned businesses have also found their right to practice their religion is being infringed upon by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called “Obamacare”). In an editorial last January, Catholic Bishop, David Zubik, detailed how the new health care law violates Catholic doctrine by forcing Catholic owned organization to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs as part of its healthcare benefit their employees.

The new law doesn't just effect Catholics. Any Christian who owns a business will be forced to offer these services to their employees regardless of his or her religious conviction.

The Obama administration has set forth guidelines in a weak attempt to defend the religious liberties of Christian businesses but they are so narrow they basically do not exempt anyone except churches.

By the way, since when does the government get to decide which organizations are religious enough to practice their faith?

The DNC Booed God

More and more often, we see God being pushed out of public discourse. Prayer has long since been removed from schools along with the 10 Commandments. High school commencement speeches are scrubbed and censored to insure no student makes any mention of God. In general, any mention of God in the public arena risks swift reprisal from the ACLU or the Americans for the Separation of Church and State.

The recent election shed light on the current administration's attitude toward people of faith. The Democrat platform conspicuously omitted any mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (both of which had been included in the platform in previous elections). Having long been seen as the anti-God party already, the Democrats soon realized that omission was a little too blatant and moved to amend the platform and add the words. A voice vote was taken and the motion did not seem to have the required number of “aye” votes to be adopted. In an awkward moment of indecisiveness, former Governor, Ted Strickland, deemed the motion had passed which prompted a round of boos from the delegates.

On September 5, 2012, Democrats booed God!

Mass Shootings

2012 was spotted with tragic murders in Colorado and Connecticut. The senseless events serve to remind us that evil is real. John 16:33 tells us that in this fallen world there will be tribulation but we can have peace in Jesus.

These sad events have been made even more unfortunate as political opportunists have shamelessly used them as leverage to infringe upon our God given right to own guns. The war on God includes attacks on our liberties.

IN CONCLUSION...

There were many things that happened in 2012 that I could discuss now but I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list. Neither am I saying that these are the “top” events of that past 12 months. I've merely given these few examples to put the past year into perspective.

The New Year is usually a time for celebration and optimism. People see it as a turning of the page – an opportunity to start over on the right foot. I'm not trying to take away from any of that. Instead, I want people to think about some goals we could have for 2013 that might be a little more important than losing weight or going to the gym.

The Yawn Factor

People who read my blog have probably already guessed that I'm very disappointed and a little surprised by the election results. There's been a lot of talk from the right since Tuesday about why we lost the election and theories abound. In my opinion, Obama rivals Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime. Both are failures in their foreign policy. Both presided over disastrous economies. Both saw fuel prices sky rocket during their terms. At least Carter can be thanked for real estate values rising during his time in office (a silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the high inflation seen in the 70's) but home owners have watched the values of their homes fall below the amounts of their mortgages due to Obama's lack of a plan to save the housing market.

As much of a failure as Obama had been, I was under the impression that there was no way he could be reelected. The disappointment in his policies hasn't just been felt by me and other Republicans, many Democrats have felt the same way. Support for Obama has waned considerably since 2008. Obama was elected into office with 69,498,516 votes. That was nearly 10 million more votes than McCain received. In this last election, 9 million fewer people voted for Obama. If just ½ of those 9 million had voted for Romney this time, he would have been elected. Instead, they must have decided to stay home.

The ebb in Obama support is only ½ the story. If Romney could have held on all the McCain voters, he would have only needed a few hundred thousand more votes to beat Obama. With the eagerness of the right to get Obama out of the office, I would have thought everyone and his brother would drag people to the polls to vote. But it was not to be. Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes than McCain did!

It seems to me that elections are being decided not as much by the engaged voters but rather the apathetic couch potatoes. Conservatism beats liberalism every time and if we had true conservative candidates, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. Every primary, though, Republicans vote for the candidates they think are the “most electable.” They look for moderates who will supposedly appeal to the “independent” voter so we end up with weak candidates like Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole.

There's nothing appealing about Obama's policies. He certainly can't boast a successful record. He should be an easy candidate to beat. Why couldn't we beat him. We don't have a candidate that conservative voters can be enthusiastic about.

Have you ever heard a Republican say he would hold his nose and vote for McCain or Romney? It's because they're not excited about the candidate but would prefer him over a Democrat like Obama. If a Reagan-like conservative were on the top of the Republican ticket, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. As it it now, they vote reluctantly or stay home.

Yawn.

I Guess Obama Would Rather Have Big Bird

I didn't hear it in the VP debate last night – the funny line about Big Bird. I was a little surprised because ever since the Presidential debate, it's been a favorite “gotcha” of the Democrats: “thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on Big Bird.” Yes, Mr. President, that's funny. Ha ha.

Perhaps I should remind the administration that we have a $1 trillion annual deficit. That means that each year, we're adding 1 trillion more dollars to the $16 trillion debt we already owe. I've talked about budgets on my blog before (here) but let me remind you a little of what I said then. A budget is a sort of list of priorities. We can't afford everything we want so we have to decide which things we're going to spend our money on.

Proverbs 22:7 says that the borrower is the servant of the lender. When we borrow money, we are giving away our liberty. In the case of our national debt, much of what we're borrowing is loaned to us from China. It's sad. What's worse is that we owe far more than can be repaid in our lifetimes so we are literally making our children, grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren slaves who will spend all of their lives and most of their paychecks paying back what we're spending today. And what do we have to show for it? Sesame Street? Curious George? We're turning our kids into slaves so that our kids can watch Barney! Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

We're financing PBS to the tune of $400 million per year. That's almost half a billion dollars. It's a lot of money but it's only about 10% of PBS's annual revenue. If we stopped funding PBS, they might miss the money but they will continue. They'll just have to learn do it without tax payer subsidies like companies have to do it in the real world.

For the next four years, we need a President who can make the tough decisions. President Obama can't seem to find anything to cut. How strange. We can't afford to keep borrowing so some things have to go. We need a President who is able to decide what our priorities are. We need to provide employers incentives to hire more people. We need a strong military and good intelligence to fight the war on terror. There are dozens other things that I think would come before funding PBS but I guess Mr. Obama would rather have Big Bird.

Keep laughing, Mr. President. We'll see who's laughing in November.

Bishop E W Jackson's Message to Black Christians

I posted a video recently exposing the intolerance of liberals. Liberals could never attain the level of tolerance they claim to have because they're idea of tolerance is self refuting. They somehow think tolerance means accepting every view as equal. The irony is that they militantly oppose anyone who doesn't hold the same view of “tolerance” as them. So they don't tolerate intolerance! It's insane.

Their intolerance often displays itself in the form of old-fashioned racism. Liberalism has done more to harm black families than 400 years of slavery. Do you think I'm kidding? Let me point out a few, undeniable facts:

In some places in the US, there are more black babies aborted than born!¹ Since Roe v. Wade, tens of millions of black babies have been aborted. It's an American holocaust. Of those who are born, 73% are born outside of wedlock and destined to live their lives in poverty.² I've heard it said that welfare and child support checks have taken the place of a wage earning fathers in the home.

Never mind that the unemployment rate of blacks is nearly double that of whites. Never mind the drop out rates about black youths. Never mind the percentage of black families whose only income is government assistance. What concerns me most about their plight is their blind devotion to the very people who seek to keep them there. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats who only promise them more government assistance, longer unemployment benefits, and easier access to abortions.

How racist is it to tell people that they don't have the tools or means to get ahead? How helpful is it continuously say to someone he can't succeed unless you help him? How insulting is it to say to blacks that if a Republican gets elected, they will be returned to chains? How stereotypical is it to expect every black person to think only one way and, if he doesn't, he's reviled for being an “Uncle Tom” and accused of not acting black!

Democrats are happy to have created a group of people who live under the delusion that they cannot exist outside of the liberal plantation. At least one black pastor has had enough. In a YouTube video, Bishop E W Jackson tells black Christians to leave the Democrat party. He says it far more eloquently than I can so I urge you to watch his video below.

This should be a message to all Christians. Liberals are not our friends. We should welcome them to our churches, we should share the gospel with them, but we should not elect them to office where they can inflict their Godless agenda on us.

Some People Aren't Paying Their Fair Share

After months of listening to Democrats whine about Romney not releasing all of his tax returns, we now get to listen to Democrats whine about Romney's tax return. There's really no surprise about what was in his return, was there? I mean, we all knew he's very rich and that most of what he makes now is income from the investments he's made in the past. He paid an effective tax rate of around 14% ($2MM taxes on $14MM income) which is typical for investment income. What is also not a surprise is how liberals are using Romney's returns as a prop in their class-warfare rhetoric.

I've never learned to sympathize with the liberal idea of fairness. Obama has talked ad nausuem about making the rich “pay their fair share” as though the rich haven't been paying their fair share already. According to Heritage.org, “The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.” I just can't get my head around the idea that it's “fair” for 10% of the people to pay 3/4 of all the taxes while 1/2 of the people aren't paying any.

One “fix” Obama has suggested is the so-called “Buffet Rule” where millionaires would be required to pay the same tax rate as “everyone else.” That's rather laughable since we've already seen that 1/2 of the people already don't pay any taxes. But besides that, why must “fairness” be accomplished by increasing the tax rate on millionaires' investments? Why not reduce the rate on working people's income to 14%? Better yet, why not make EVERYONE pay a flat tax of 14% of their income? That would certainly be the most fair thing.

The purpose of the tax code is supposed to be providing revenue to the federal government. However, the Feds see the tax code as an opportunity to engage in social engineering. The want to bludgeon the rich with abusive taxes and then hold themselves up as champions of the poor. Liberal Democrats are bringing back the caste system and want to create a perpetually poor voting base which is totally dependent on the charity of the political aristocracy. Tyrants!! Every one of them is a tyrant.

There's an old saying that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. The current level of class-warfare goes well beyond that. Democrats are telling Paul to hate Peter.

Jon Stewart Asks DNC Delegates About Tolerance

It's impossible to make liberals appear any more foolish than they already are. However, whenever an opportunity presents itself to show just how foolish they can be, I'm more than happy to oblige. Jon Stewart, who is himself quite liberal, has shown that at least he a little more keenly aware of the hypocrisy inherent in the liberal worldview.

In this short video clip, two of Stewart's “reporters” interviewed some of the delegates at the recent DNC. They're happy to boast that they are the “big tent” party of tolerance. Yeah, right! Just listen to how tolerant they are of people who don't share their political views (sorry about the video quality, BTW).

Like I said, they make themselves look foolish. What more can I add except to say this is exactly what I've been talking about. Liberalism is the embodiment of contradiction. Militant pursuit of tolerance virtually demands that a person be intolerant.

Thanks, Mr. Stewart, for a good laugh. Although, when you really think about it, it's sort of sad, isn't it?

The Alternative Media Strikes Again

There's a reason I call the mainstream media the “alternative media.” Most TV news shows, cable news shows, liberal news sites, and many newspapers have simply demonstrated they are not credible sources of news. On Wednesday, 9/12, I blogged about the assaults on our embassies in the Middle East. That's news. That's what Americans need to hear about. Well, all the rest of that day and yesterday, the media spends it's time not covering the events in the Middle East but attacking the timing and tone of Mitt Romney's condemnation of the attacks and his criticism of President Obama!

 

Under the headline, “Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed',” the Huffington Post provided some of the following quotes:

 

The Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt for speaking against an incendiary anti-Muslim film, even though the embassy made the statement before any attacks had taken place. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, called the statement "irresponsible" and a "bad mistake." ABC's Jake Tapper said that Romney's attack "does not stand up to simple chronology."

 

When Romney appeared in a press conference, reporters had the chance to ask him substantive questions about the crisis brewing in the Middle East. Instead, they wasted the entire interview prodding him on his criticism of Obama. Here are some of the “tough” questions he was asked:

 

REPORTER #1 (male): The statement from the President was very toughly worded statement last night. Do you regret the tone at all, given what we know now?

REPORTER # 2 (female): Governor Romney, do you think, though, coming so soon after the events, really, had unfolded overnight was appropriate to be weighing in as this as this crisis is unfolding in real time?

REPORTER (male) #3: You talk about mixed signals. The world is watching. Isn't this itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time when Americans are being killed? Shouldn't politics stop- [garbled]

REPORTER (female) #4: Governor, some people have said that you jumped the gun a little in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Um, do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening? 

REPORTER #5 (male): If you had known last night that the ambassador died, and, obviously, I'm gathering you did not know- If you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly issued statement? 

REPORTER #6: How specifically, Governor Romney, would a President Romney have handled the situation differently than President Obama? [Finally, some substance]

Are you freaking kidding me?! On the anniversary of 9/11, two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and four US citizens were killed!! Do these reporters really think the first questions on the public's mind is whether Romney was a little too hard on Obama for the administration's early handling of the situation? 

I'm not a news guy but let me offer a little help: “US Embassies Attacked in Middle East”; “War on Terror Not Over”; “Al Qaeda Suspected in Organizing Riots that Killed 4 US Officials.” These are the headlines we need to be reading. What is President Obama going to do about it? What would President Romney do about it? These are the questions we need to be asking. Questions like those above and headlines like, “Romney Shows He's Out of His Depth in Foreign Policy” are a waste of our time.

We're Still at War with Terrorists

I made the decision to not blog anything yesterday, on 9/11. It wasn't because I don't think the date was important but it was out of a sense of reverence. To simply say, “we won't forget,” is obvious to the extreme and was posted on 1,000,000 other blogs already. I also didn't want to risk saying anything that might sound like, “Happy 9/11.” In the end, I thought it best to leave the day to everyone's own, private reflection.

Last night, The History Channel played video footage reconstructing the time line of the events on that dreadful morning. It was stirring. I went to sleep recalling many of the same feelings I felt 11 years ago. Then I woke up this morning to the terrible news that two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and the US Ambassador to Libya was murdered along with three of his staffers!

Maybe I should have said something yesterday because I think people are indeed forgetting that there are still terrorists out there who hate us. Many people actually seem to have a pre-9/11 mentality where they believe radical Muslims can be reasoned with. As a mob rioted outside of the US Embassy in Cairo, protesting a YouTube movie critical of Muhammad, the Embassy officials actually sympathized with the protesters. They issued this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too hasty to judge because it's possible that Embassy officials were afraid for their lives and released this statement in hopes is would quell the mob's anger. It seems to me to be counterproductive, though, since this statement might embolden the rioters by admitting the the movie's creators were out of line. Even after the the mob stormed the Embassy's grounds, took down and burned the American flag, and raised a pro-Muslim standard in its place, the Embassy officials tweeted that their previous statement still stands.

However, after a rocket attack on the US Embassy in Libya killed 4, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got tough – well, sort of. In still another press release, she seemed to apologized yet again:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yeah, Hillary, that's very clear. You deplore attacks on religious beliefs (except at the DNC where they booed God) but that's not an excuse for violence. OK, where in that statement do you actually condemn the attack on our Embassy?

President Obama finally got around to putting out the “official,” White House statement. He disavowed the Embassy's statement saying it does not reflect the views of the United States. Really, Mr. President? Our US Embassies don't represent the United States? I guess your Secretary of State doesn't represent your administration either? Anyway, the President said:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

At least in this statement the President condemned the attack before taking a swipe at the makers of the video. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't escape my notice that Republican, Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney condemned the attack before the President.

I'm not the President, of course, and it's hard for me to say how best we should respond going forward. However, after having seen the “blame America first” attitude on grand display so far, I'm not optimistic. The President has said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. He calls acts of terrorism “man made disasters” or, in the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, “work place violence.” The entire Administration refuses to use the words “Islamic extremists” or “radical Muslims.” Democrats will call conservative groups like the Tea Party, “domestic terrorists” but they refuse to use the label for true terrorists!

The anti-American attitudes that has brewed in the Middle East for decades still simmers. Democrats can apologize until they're blue in the face but that won't quell the anger. Liberals can turn a blind eye and call each act of violence an “isolated incident” but that won't stop the violence. And let's be honest, it's not a coincidence that these riots happened on 9/11. We are still at war with terrorists.

No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!

You know, I've about had it up to here with liberals. I'm not talking about the rank and file Democrat, mind you, though they're annoying enough. I'm talking specifically about liberals in elected office. They go far beyond annoying.

A certain amount of “bleeding heart” can be attributed to altruism. Feed the hungry, help the poor, and similar objectives may be noble ideals but liberals and conservatives have different ideas about how to address them. The problem with liberalism is that, the more committed one is to the idea, the more irrational he must be. A quest for tolerance, for example, virtually drives liberals to be intolerant. It's unavoidable. So I've resigned myself to the fact that, if I wish to contend in the arena of ideas, I will have to suffer listening to the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh well.

However, when we're talking about elected liberals, we're talking about something else all together. Because of their political office, they are in a position to force their ideology onto people. They're not just annoyances, they're despots!

Just recently, Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-fil-A made some comments about how he supported the biblical definition of marriage and expressed his concerns that America's attitudes toward gays might bring a judgment from God. Whether or not anyone agrees with Mr. Dan's comments is not the point. No one can argue that Mr. Dan has a first Amendment Right to say them. The First Amendment not only protects his free speech, it also protects his right to hold his religious beliefs. And just in case you haven't read the First Amendment lately, I will remind you that it specifically forbids the government from infringing on our freedom of speech or prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. In other words, the First Amendment doesn't restrict what I can do – it restricts what the government can do.

Of course, liberals politicians will never let something like the Constitution stand in the way of their particular brand of justice. In response to Mr. Cathy's comments, Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino said the following:

“I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”

Isn't that strange? I mean, what would liberals be saying if a conservative mayor said something like, “Because of their favorable view of gay marriage, Starbucks is not welcome in our city”? No doubt they'd be protesting that mayor just like they are now protesting Chick-fil-A. Liberals are blind to their own intolerance.

Other liberal politicians have made similar remarks. One Chicago alderman, Joe Moreno said, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago." Gee. How much more blatant can they be? Do I need to remind the alderman that free speech specifically means that one can express his political or religious views without consequences? I suppose I must because he doesn't seem to get it. If a private citizen suffers political reprisal for expressing his political or religious views, he doesn't have free speech!

Would liberals dare say the same thing of black owned businesses?  What about a Muslim owned business? Never mind.  The hypocrisy of liberals in this case is an ancillary issue. What concerns me more is the blatant attack on religious liberty. Democrat mayors and other elected officials are specifically abusing the powers of their office to exact punishment on a privately owned company because of the religious beliefs of its president. This should be grounds for their impeachment.

These people should be ashamed but they're not. They remind me of the Democrats of old who stood on the steps of schools in the segregated south and refused to let black students enter. The Mayor of Boston might as well post a sign at the city limits: “No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!”

Bigots! Tyrants! Bullies! Despots! Did I mention how they annoy me?

A “Fair” Alternative to the Buffett Rule

With Obama having very little to show for his first term in office, his strategy for reelection seems to be promoting tax “fairness.” The one and only plank in his tax fairness platform is the so-called “Buffett Rule” which is new type of alternative minimum tax that will require people who earn more than $1,000,000 per year to pay the same tax rate as “everyone else.” It's a nice sounding soundbite but it's a strategy that would be hard to execute.

First off, nearly ½ of the people in the US pay NO federal income taxes at all. So why should I take seriously any claim that it's millionaires who aren't paying their fair share? After all, even 10% of $1,000,000 is infinitely more than 100% of nothing. If we're aiming for fairness, it's those people who pay nothing who aren't paying their fair share. The millionaires are paying for many of the benefits that the free-loaders are using. The Occupy Movement should be happy they have it so good. Instead, they whine about needing more. They now want the 1% to pay for their college, their health care, and even their homes. I guess by “fair” they mean someone else should pay their bills.

When the President talks about fairness, he's not talking about the 50% that pay no taxes. He's talking about the rate that millionaires pay compared to the rate that middle class workers pay. According to the President, if someone makes $1,000,000 per year, he should pay at least 30% of his income in taxes. Hmmm. What about people who make $900,000 per year? Is is OK if they only pay, say, 20% when millionaires are paying 30%?

When Mr. Obama released his tax returns for 2011, we saw that he actually paid a lower rate than his secretary (source). White House spokesperson Amy Brundage said of Obama's return, “[this] is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share.” That's odd. The Buffett rule would not have made a difference for the President since his income was less than $1,000,000.

In the US, we use marginal tax rates. Otherwise, a person who makes exactly $1,000,000 in one year would net less after taxes than someone who made $995,000. The way marginal tax rates work is that as people make more and more money, they enter progressively higher tax brackets and pay a larger percentage of taxes only on the amount they earn in the higher brackets. It's a rather cumbersome system but that's the way it works.

Liberals have taken advantage of the tax code to engage in social engineering. This way, they can entice people into buying an electric car, for example, by giving tax subsidies to people who buy them. With so many pages in the tax code, numerous tax credits, tax deductions, and loop holes, people in the higher tax brackets never pay taxes on their entire income.

The purpose of taxes is to raise money for the government but liberals don't give a whit about revenue. Even if passed, the Buffett Rule would only raise about .43% (less than half of one percent) of our current deficit. Democrats are trumpeting the Buffett Rule only out of some absurd sense of “fairness.” It will not address out of control spending. It will not create jobs. It doesn't do anything except punish millionaires and give the President something to run on besides his failed domestic policies. It's class warfare at its worst.

If tax fairness is the objective, then I have an even more “fair” alternative to the Buffett Rule. Let's do away with all tax deductions, tax credits, and tax loop holes, then go to a flat tax of 15%. This way, millionaires and billionaires pay the same as their secretaries; middle class workers will pay less taxes; and all those people who don't pay any taxes will finally end up paying their fair share.

What could be more fair than that?

What's Not Being Said About Rush Limbaugh's Comments

We've all heard about Rush's remarks concerning law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before congress. We've all heard about Obama's call to Ms. Fluke, offering his condolences for Rush's remarks. We've all heard Nancy Pelosi's seeming outrage and her comment that Rush should be “advertiseless.” We've all heard Sean Hannity and other conservatives correctly identify the double standard of Democrats who condemn Rush's remarks but have no comment about the hateful things liberals say about conservative women. Well, here's something you probably haven't heard:

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Rush's remarks, though they may be offensive, are his opinions and he has the liberty to speak them. Of course, since Rush broadcasts over publicly licensed radio signals, there are certain words he's not allowed to use. Beyond that, he can speak his mind no matter how extreme his views may be.

Like Rush, Bill Maher is free to speak his mind. Unlike Rush, however, Bill Maher broadcasts over cable television so he can even use 4-letter words which Rush can't (and he uses them frequently). Compared to Maher's comments about women, Rush's use of words like “slut” and “prostitute” are somewhat tame. Even so, Rush Limbaugh's and Bill Maher's comments are both protected by the First Amendment.

Not only are Rush and Bill free to speak their views, but we who listen to them are also free to condemn them. Some people have called for a boycott of Rush. Some people are canceling their HBO subscriptions because of Bill. The people who are upset with Rush or Bill and are reaching out to sponsors are simply exercising their free speech. When someone like Rush or Bill speaks his mind, he might persuade or repulse others. Listeners will either affirm or condemn their remarks. This is the marketplace of ideas. This is liberty.

What I see wrong in this whole affair is the condemnation of Rush made by elected, public officials. The First Amendment specifically protects the political speech of private individuals from the government! If President Obama uses the bully-pulpit of his office to shame Rush, he is using the power of the Presidency to infringe on the Rush's free speech. When Nancy Pelosi suggests that advertisers should drop Rush, she too is infringing on his First Amendment rights.

The left in notorious for their war on liberty. They don't care that Rush has free speech; they want to silence him. Neither do they care that their radical views on contraception (which inspired Rush's comments) violates people's freedom of religion. And while we're at it, what about their continuous maligning of FOX News? Have they noticed the First Amendment also protects the freedom of the press?

And let's be clear about something: these liberals aren't really offended by Rush's remarks; we know this because they say not one word about Maher's much worse misogynistic remarks. They are specifically interested in squelching Rush's political speech.

So let's sum up: private individuals are free to make offensive remarks. Other private individuals are free to embrace or reject those remarks. We can call on other people to boycott talk shows when the host says something we don't like. We can even boycott companies that decide to drop advertising on talk shows that we do like. We can say and do all these things and elected officials should not be able to use the sway of their office to influence our private discourse because our rights are protected by the First Amendment.

They do use their political sway, though. Fortunately, I have a blog and intend to exercise my right to speak out about the shameful tactics of these enemies of liberty.

Oil and Obama's Bad Math

My economics teacher in college once said, “The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.” I'm fairly sure he was quoting someone else but the point was well made and I've used the same quote many times myself. Lately, however, I sometimes I wonder if liberals count on people being bad in math when they spout their rhetoric. Democrats use figures that are so misleading they have to be relying on their audience not being sophisticated enough to figure it out. Alternatively, maybe they themselves don't understand the bad math and are simply repeating an argument they don't understand.

Last week, Obama made the following remarks in a speech at the Daimler Truck Manufacturing Plant in Mt. Holly, NC:

“As a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world's oil -- I'm going to repeat that -- we've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.”

He has since quoted the same statistic many times in various venues. Occasionally, he includes ridicule of Sarah Palin's slogan, “Drill, baby, drill” from the last Presidential election and each time he repeats the lie, he is usually met with frenzied approval. The obvious, intended impression is that our consumption far outstrips the puny amount of oil we have so drilling more won't decrease our dependence on foreign supplies.

Here's the truth: According to an extensive geological survey conducted in 2000, there are approximately 3 trillion barrels of oil underground all around the world. If President Obama is correct that 2% of that is located in the US, that means there are 60,000,000,000 (60 billion) barrels of oil that is ours for the drilling.

The President also said the US consumes 20% of all the oil produced each year. In 2009, the US oil consumption was just under 19,000 barrels of oil per day (source). Now, I'm not a math wizard but I do have a calculator on my computer. At our current rate of consumption, the US has enough oil underground to meet our demand for the next 8,600 years!! Even if we were to double or triple our consumption of oil, we shouldn't have to worry about running out. There's plenty.

Here's another thing I learned in economics, where there is a greater supply of something, prices go down. If we increase oil production here, prices will drop. I guarantee it. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem concerned with increased domestic oil production. No doubt this is due to his affinities toward environmentalism. His strategy thus far to reduce our dependence on foreign oil seems to be 1) don't drill in Alaska, 2) ban off shore drilling, 3) kill the Keystone pipeline from Canada, and 4) suck up to oil producing despots in the Middle East. The result of his 4 pronged approach is that gas prices have doubled during his term in office.

Now, I don't want to over simply this. Even though there's a lot of oil in the ground, there's a lot involved with getting it out of ground and getting it refined. That costs money and companies have to be sure there will be a profit in it for them before spending billions of dollars. They need to be certain of the President's and Congress's commitment to a several-years-long undertaking.

Obama claims to not want higher gas prices, but every move he has made during his presidency seems geared toward doing just that. We feel the effect of his failed (successful?) strategy in our wallets every time we gas up.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

Bob Hope on Zombies

Here's some comic relief.  I know it's an oldie but it's still a goodie.  Enjoy!!

How Not to Create Jobs

Part of the President's job speech last night proposed increasing taxes on wealthy Americans & CEO's (i.e. “employers”) and extending benefits to unemployed people. It sounds a little strange to me. Once again I suggest it might benefit our elected officials in Washington to brush up on economics. Let me give a thumbnail:

We work to make money, right? It's nice if we enjoy our jobs but if we don't get paid then it's not a job – it's a hobby. We work for a paycheck. When we get paid, we pay our bills. We pay our rent or mortgage, our car payments, we buy gas, we buy groceries, etc. We also have disposable income that we use for our enjoyment: we go out to dinner, we buy video games, we go to the movies, we take vacations, or whatever. When we spend our paychecks, we're helping to pay other peoples' paychecks. We pay for the salaries of people who work at the gas stations, the grocery stores, the restaurants, the theaters, etc. When they get paid, they spend the money much the same way as everybody else. In short, I work to produce goods or services so that I can buy goods and services that other people work to produce. This IS the economy!

With unemployment so high, we have a lot of people who aren't producing goods or services. They are removed from an important part of the equation. There is “less economy” when more people aren't working. The economy is only sustained by the people who are still working and producing. So what is the President's solution? It seems that part of his solution is to take more money from the people who are working and sustaining the economy and give to the people who are aren't contributing to the economy!

It would almost be laughable that Democrats think this way but the effect of their policies is so tragic. I've heard Democrats, more than once, claim that paying unemployment benefits to non-producing individuals is the most “bang for the buck” in stimulating the economy. With staggeringly high unemployment and people already receiving benefits for 99 weeks, we should have climbed out of this pit a long time ago but we're still limping along. Now the President has suggested extending unemployment benefits another year? I'm telling you that is part of the problem. People aren't working because they don't have to and the economy isn't growing because so many people aren't producing.

If you want to make the claim that we need a safety net for people suddenly out of work then make that argument. It might be reasonable to help people but it should only be for a few months. If you enable people to remain unemployed then we're merely sustaining their poverty. I've written before how the Bible suggested we handle the problem: if an able bodied man doesn't work, then neither let him eat! When people aren't getting a government check each week for not working, and they have to decide between ANY job and starving, I guarantee you they'll take ANY job.

My advice to the President and all other Democrats out there is to drop the idea that taxing producers to pay non-producers can create jobs. It was a joke in 2009 and it's an old joke now.

A Preview of President Obama's Job Speech

All day on the radio today I've been hearing news briefs previewing Obama's big job speech tomorrow. According to Bloomberg, “The main components of Obama’s jobs plan... have been largely telegraphed by the administration. For weeks, people familiar with deliberations have said the White House is considering tax incentives, infrastructure and assistance to local governments.” Excuse me? Are they serious? It sounds like more of the same to me.

The “center piece” of the plan is supposed to involve extending the cuts in the payroll tax. Hmmm. Let's see. Obama offers a “payroll tax holiday” to spur job growth, it hasn't worked thus far, so the center piece of his new plan is to extend them? Yep, that sounds like Democrat economics all right.

What's new is that in this plan, he's supposed to include a reduction in the employer paid portion of the tax. I don't see how that's going to make a difference. Temporary incentives never work. Why would they? If you give a temporary incentive to an employer to hire someone, the employer knows that next year he will no longer receive the incentive yet he's still stuck paying the employee.

The second point, according to Bloomberg, is spending on infrastructure. I suppose this is like those “shovel ready” projects that were just waiting to be funded with the last stimulus package. As Obama has laughingly admitted, they “were not as shovel ready as we expected.” I'm sure he's a lot more optimistic about these new projects.

One news report suggested some of the money for infrastructure would be used to repair and update public school buildings. Once again, this is a temporary fix. If I own a construction company and I hire a few workers to help repair an old building, once the building is done the workers will go.

And did I read that correctly? Did Bloomberg really suggest that part of the jobs plan includes “assistance to local governments”? I don't see how funding teachers' unions and bloated government workers' pension plans will create jobs but I'm sure it will result in a lot of grateful voters next November.

The funniest thing I heard on the radio all day was how Obama intends to pay for all this. The report said he will offset the programs with “future deficit reductions.” That is a riot. That would be like me personally saying, “I'm going to borrow $200,000 now and I'm going to pay it back by borrowing less later.” You can see how that doesn't quite work.

I'm sure somewhere in the speech he'll also be blaming Bush and the Republicans. Right after the election, I predicted that Obama would continue for a while to blame Bush. I had no idea, though, that he would continue blaming him 3 years later.

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I should wait until I hear the President's plan before I comment on it. Maybe the President has some good ideas about how to create jobs. I just wonder why he's waited until now to present them. I guess he wanted to try placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling and promoting “green jobs” first.